Sunday, February 15, 2015

Science deniers try to change the facts about climate

Anthony Watts has finally written a promo for a book put out last month by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) (archived here). The book is called, somewhat ambiguously: Climate Change the Facts 2014. Given the publisher and the contributors, the meaning is pretty obvious: Climate - change the facts - 2014.

The IPA is one of the few right wing lobby groups in Australia that campaigns for action to increase global warming and climate change. It tends to be pro-fossil fuel and anti-mitigation of global warming. It panders to right wing science deniers. Although influential in some quarters, when it comes to climate, the IPA gets short shrift by most thinking people in this country. We Australians don't particularly want hotter temperatures, worse droughts, more catastrophic fires or bigger badder floods. Our climate already has more than enough of all that.

This new book looks like it's a follow-up to a 2010 publication, which included chapters by such luminaries (in the fake sceptic world) as Richard Tol, Nigel Lawson, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and Ian Plimer. I don't know if anyone read that book. This time the IPA has given their book more publicity, right underneath a plea to support alleged defamer Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is heading for a tour down under, possibly fighting to extend freedom of speech beyond the acceptable, to embrace the right to defame, if his track record is anything to go by.

Will this latest version of "change the facts" get more readers than the IPA's first (freebie) book did? Maybe by charging for it this time around the IPA will get greater exposure and commitment from deniers.

Given that Anthony Watts wrote a chapter I was wondering why he waited so long to boast about it. The book came out a month or so back. Turns out Anthony was waiting till the book was available on Kindle. That's the only way he's getting any payment for his contribution, according to him. (He doesn't say what his chapter is about. Russian steampipes? Insects?)

The IPA scoured the world for the more prominent climate science deniers and mixed them up with some less prominent and more wacky ones. The editor, Alan Moran, managed to get entries from the following:

Ian "iron sun" Plimer who has been fairly quiet since his heaven and earth fiasco (I sometimes wonder who really wrote that book)

Willie Soon who has had to resort to lending his name to a paper by the potty peer Christopher Monckton and the ratbag William M Briggs and scrounging funds from the Heartland Institute to publish some nonsense in a little known Chinese journal (not a climate science journal)

Joanne Nova, the pseudonym of Australian Jo Codling, an ex-children's television entertainer turned climate science denier who, with her partner the rocket scientist from Luna Park, promotes Force X and the Notch

Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, who write very dumb papers claiming that the world isn't really warming or if it is it's "natural"

Rupert Darwall, who I've never heard of

Ross McKitrick, an economics professor who keeps trying and failing to prove there aren't any hockey sticks in the world, or something

Mark Steyn, a sensationalist blogger/hack, who speaks of climate scientists with allusions to child molesters and is being sued for defamation

Christopher Essex, about whom I know little except that he seems to be a one man organisation that grandly calls himself the "World Federation of Scientists" and moves and seconds motions decrying climate science then carries these motions himself

Bernard Lewin, another person I've never heard of

Stewart Franks, an engineering academic from Australia who belongs to the same anti-environment organisations as Jennifer Marohasy (above)

Anthony Watts, an american who runs a blog for science deniers and conspiracy theorists and who wonders if global warming is being caused by Russian steam pipes

Andrew Bolt, an Australian blogger who got his own television segment here. Similar to James Delingpole in that (so I've been told) he prides himself on his ignorance, confusing ignorance with independence. His tone and language is usually a tad milder than James, but the sentiment is the same.

What a ragtag bunch. According to RenewEconomy last year, the book was to have been mailed out hither, thither and yon for free. (I've yet to receive my free copy.) People who aren't important enough to get a free copy and want to lap up nonsense like this have to pay for it. You'll have to cough up $AUD24.95 for a hard copy. You can pick up the Kindle version for a mere $US9.95.

I first wrote about this early last year when it was revealed that Australian taxpayers are helping to subsidise the book. (The IPA is registered as a non-profit organisation, therefore tax exempt. Also, donations to it are tax-deductible. This equates to a subsidy by Australian taxpayers. To rub salt in the wound, the IPA has over many years used the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as its freeby publisher. More subsidisation from Australian taxpayers.)

Anyone who was dumb enough to donate $400 or more would get their name emblazoned for all to see on the back cover. So if anyone has donated more than $400 to get this silly little book published, feel free to let me know and I'll give you some more free publicity :)

From the WUWT comments

Quite a few commenters at WUWT are well aware that this book won't go anywhere. That most of the people who'll buy it are science deniers who want to have their wishes "confirmed" by other science deniers. John Francis wrote:

February 14, 2015 at 10:11 am
Is it just me? Is it just my biases? But it seems to me, just looking at that list of authors, that members of the skeptic community (gawd, how I hate that tribal generalization – but it is convenient) are hell’s bells better writers, and possess far better senses of humor (actually ‘better’ is an inaccurate term when the comparison is to, well … nothing) than the dour, self righteous, nose-in-the-air, humorless, screeds who populate the CAGW opportunistic industrial complex. I’ve enjoyed the clever humor of Michaels, the smoothness of McKitrick, and the others, and then, there’s … Mark Steyn.

pauline young doesn't think the freebies sent to Australian politicians had any impact:

February 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm
A copy was sent to every member of the federal government in Australia….. sadly I don’t think it has had much impact.

George McFly......I'm your density liked it so much he read it out loud to his poor wife.

February 14, 2015 at 8:40 pm
Great book Anthony. I got a copy a few weeks ago and have read it already, some chapters twice! One section I read out aloud to my wife….seriously clever and funny. Worth every cent

I doubt many people have heard of Mark Steyn here in Australia. Most "free speech" wails in Australia are from people complaining they aren't allowed to incite hatred against people of varying ethnicities. The legislation nearly got watered down, but IIRC the government backed down.

I don't think we've had too many people touring the country bemoaning the fact that in the USA they are not free to tell lies about climate scientists, without risking a defamation suit. This is probably a first - and it's from someone no-one here knows, much less cares about, (except some of his fans in the climate denial business whose favourite blog is WUWT).

Rupert Darwall wrote a book called "The age of global warming. A history". He's also been writing articles for right-wing magazines promoting Murry Salby. From various Twitter exchanges he thinks that it's all some kind of conspiracy/groupthink. He recently asked me why global warming wasn't an issue in the 1930s. My response "because it wasn't" was not satisfactory. His view seems to be that we can understand the current "scare" by just considering history.

I admit to being a bit surprised that some of the authors are willing to be associated with others. For example: Richard Lindzen with Mark Steyn and James Delingpole. I'd have thought Nigel Lawson, too, would not want to be seen with the riff raff and utter nuttery. (Ian Plimer and Bob Carter gave up their self-respect long ago.)

Perhaps it's because there are only a few loud mouthed deniers left these days that class distinctions no longer apply and pride is put aside for the sake of the denier "cause".

That's exactly right, Sou; if you're demonstrating denial it doesn't matter what you think and say, you're on the right side.

It's long surprised me that there's so little discussion or argument between those denying the necessity for climate action. Compare that relative agreement—or at least a refusal to criticise—between those blogging their latest denial theories, with the noisy discussions between climate scientists over their latest published papers. A casual observation should tell you which is the 'religion' and which is a search for scientific reality.

I am trying to make an earnest effort to understand the topic of "climate change", which I understand used to be referred to as "anthropogenic global warming". I arrived at your hotwhopper site after a google search looking for reviews of the target book "Climate Change: The Facts", and was hoping for a discussion of the substance of the book. Rather it appears you do not find that the reputations of the contributors to the book warrant any reading of it. Could you recommend a different book or article to assist me in trying to gain an understanding of the issues involved in "climate change"?

I would recommend the skeptical science website, particularly The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism, or anything else from their resources: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

Sou, it's a Kardashian thing - it's a continual source of amazement to many that some of us live our whole lives without giving a damn about them, or celebrities (i.e people famous for being famous) generally.

(Extra points are awarded if you just said 'who?' again.)

Former Olympian Bruce, for the record, is now Caitlyn, which is all very nice but has bugger all to do with anything...

It’s interesting that a sixties-something woman with an "interest" in climate science, a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours), and an MBA presumes to claim a position of unchallengeable infallibility on climate change and, thus endowed, to peremptorily dismiss contributions to that subject from anyone whose conclusions or hypotheses on this subject diverge from the teachings of her Climate Church.

The objects of her disdain include several scientists who, with apparently little or no regard for the sentiments she would one day express towards them, somehow managed in past years to chalk up rather impressive qualifications and academic records. Her cute distortions of their work, courageously playing to her gallery, add immeasurably to her scientific credibility.

Armed with her daunting Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and MBA, this apostle of climatic correctness (possibly self-appointed) decides whom we should and should not be listening to. She even provides a helpful list of heretics and dissidents who have the temerity to challenge the dogmas of her Climate Church.

I must say, though, we do appreciate knowing that she’s never heard of John Abbott, Bernard Lewin, or Rupert Darwall. Heck, if they lack even that most basic qualification, where do they get off presuming to talk about climate science?

Praise the Lord for sending Bachelors of Agricultural Science (Honours) and MBAs to save humanity from itself.

I don't know what you're talking about, Antoine. Are you one of the unknown authors feeling left out? Are you under the mistaken impression that the IPA's book is about science? Which bits did you "believe" in?

BTW, I've never claimed infallibility. This blog isn't about me, or religion. It's about climate science, and the silly things that science deniers come up with.

(Deniers are not the best at comprehension, are they.They are good at dishing out logical fallacies, though.)

The sad thing is, dear Antoine, that the woman you so disdain for her BAS and MBA as compared to those other supposed luminaries...gets the science much better than your supposed luminaries!

The reason I call it a "sad thing" is because having a PhD myself and training the future PhDs on a daily basis, I know what is expected from academic training, and what those people with a PhD should be able to do. Your supposed luminaries may have in some fields done some reasonable work, but in climate science only two of those listed have done reasonable work. Ironically, one of those is best known for being mostly wrong (but in interesting ways - Richard Lindzen) in his science and completely bonkers in his op-eds, and the other is best known for a hypothesis that is at best disputed, and at worst just outright wrong.

A Force X and a Notcher, like Jo Nova and her Rocket Scientist from Luna Park, or

Someone who thinks that the bulk of scientists and research organisations have been engaged in "fraud" for the past several decades, as some authors claim, or

an "I'm not allowed to believe in science because of my political views" denier like the nutty notions of James Delingpole and Andrew Bolt, or

Just plain old garden variety "climate science is a hoax" conspiracy theorist.

He hasn't said anything about which bits he found in the IPA nonsense that so appealed to him. He'd probably be stuck with too many contradictory notions to promote. And perhaps he is afraid we'd laugh even harder at his pompous science denial or his paranoid conspiracy theories.

Dear Marco, I'm rather impressed that your Ph.D. qualifies you to decide, and categorically declare, who's right and who's wrong on this issue. I'm quite miffed that mine didn't come with any such authority!

It seems Antoine was trained to let his personal bias lead his analysis of data; although I hope that his grad advisor is now seriously miffed to see his training of Antoine has failed so miserably.

Only people who led their personal biases rule their analysis of information would read my comment as saying that my PhD qualifies me to decide and categorically declare who's right and who's wrong on this issue.

Antoine, can you - with the power of your apparent PhD - explain where Sou is wrong, and thus where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists and physicists are wrong?

You've pulled a red herring from your hat, but you haven't actually said where any of Sou's postings are wrong. Nor have you specifically identified the "several scientists" whom you seem to feel need defending from Sou, and worse than that, you haven't explained how their "impressive qualifications and academic records" actually do anything to refute, contradict, or otherwise invalidate the consensus position that Sou supports and that has been arrived at by the hundreds and indeed thousands of professional climatologists with which you seem to take exception.

So, what's your point, and what's your case to support it? An ad hominem drive by is hardly a thrown-down gauntlet: it doesn't even rate as a frilly lace handkerchief fluttering onto a muddy puddle.

For me he did not make me yawn. I found him rather creepy with his personally directed abuse with its misogynistic overtones. As you say bill, without offering anything of substance. He would benefit from some serious self reflection on his bigotry.

Dear Marco, I'm awfully sorry for wrongly inferring that it was your Ph.D. that endowed you with the authority to declare that X "gets the science much better" than Y. It seemed a reasonable inference, given that it was the only qualification you adduced. But if that authority flows from some other qualification you possess then do please share it with us.

My *training*, Antoine. It really isn't that hard to get that. It is clear from yourself and from several of the people in the list that having obtained a PhD isn't enough - you also need to have had the proper training as a PhD...and then also use that training.

Grandstanding and inflating uncertainty isn't that hard to spot, and many on the list almost scream both at you. People who so willingly associate themselves with political think tanks, as so many on the list, are not doing so because they have a scientifically convincing message. They have a political story to tell/sell.

Dear Jammy, if you'd be kind enough to identify my specific misogynistic infractions I'll be happy to embark on a program of self-improvement. While I appreciate your penetrating diagnosis, it would be helpful if you could share your clinical notes and in particular your observations of any relevant symptoms.

Evidently no one's prepared either to back up Jammy's imputation of misogyny or to dissociate themselves from it. Not that I care particularly but I'm almost certain I heard someone talking about ad hominem attacks a few paragraphs up!

Antoine, you bore me. You've said nothing of substance in any of your 12 comments so far.

If you just want to moan about yourself, go do it somewhere else. This a a science blog, not a notice board for self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking, "climate hoax" conspiracy theorists to punch out from their keyboard whatever is the first notion that pops into their otherwise empty head.

Others - let's not give him anything more to eat. He's just what we, in this part of the world, call a greedy guts.

Heh, I responded to Antoine above in the order in which I was reading today's exchange with him, to subsequently find that others had already made the same points that I did, and that Antoine has no argument other than the fluff of a vacuous troll.

Sad little person, who must be sadder still that his denialism has failed to bear fruit and he now has to deal with the serious implications of the warnings that science has given for decades. I'm sure that he won't give up his cognitive scotoma without a fight though: he'll need to be dragged kicking and screaming to reality, and probably won't acknowledge its presence until it personally lands a boot in his backside.

Sou - since the subject of "sixties-something woman" has come up, you might want to consider a slight deviation from your normal WUWT fare and see if you can do a biographical sketch and interview with Makiko Sato - Hansen's longtime collaborator.

Never has so little been written or known about one of our generations most prolific and important scientists. Frankly, I didn't even know Sato was a woman until today - yet I've probably referred to "Hansen & Sato" or "Sato et al" dozens if not hundreds of times in discussing climate.

Crikey, somewhere in all this someone said it was about science...can't see any science here. You do yourself no favours with a catty little blog which seeks to put down those who appose your views, including Thatcher's chancellor and science advisor. Give us the science and educate us to a proper view. Play the ball, not the man.

Look harder, Jack. There is plenty of science to be had at HotWhopper. Check the blog archive in the side panel to the left, or use the search bar for a topic that interests you.

You might not like how I treat climate science deniers, which says more about you than me :(

PS I said nothing about any science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Are you speaking of the person who advised her on this speech she made to the Royal Society? Who was that?

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346

As for her Chancellor, assuming you mean Nigel Lawson - he's an active climate science denier who agitates for more global warming. He deserves all the mockery and contempt he gets.

PS by your terminology (catty) and complaint about me dissing conspiracy nutters, I'm guessing you're a "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist as well as someone who regards today's women as feminazis (though you seem to have a fondness for the iron lady).

Jack, Jack, Jack deary me, if the faux skeptics and their websites were playing the ball instead of the person, then the reactionary pro-AGW blogs such as this one would not exist. We would all be having a nice civil discussion about climate science around a pot of tea.

Jack, when has Thatcher's science adviser, George Guise, ever been criticised on this website? George had a background in research physics amongst other things. Thatcher had an honours degree in science (Chemistry), did her research dissertation (x-ray crystallography) under Dorothy Hodgkin (whose fame you'd be aware of) and worked in the fields of glue and food chemistries before taking a law degree. Coincidentally, Jack, you appear to be confirming Thatcher's view that "opinion outweighs knowledge" when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)